Judgment : PADMINI JESUDURAI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. by the accused in Crime No. 44 of 1991 registered with the first respondent on a complaint by the second respondent, seeking custody of the lorry seized in the case. ( 2 ) THE second respondent had given a complaint which has now been registered for offences under Sections 420, 406 and 465 Cr. P. C. The case is pending investigation. The allegation in the complaint is that the second respondent, being an ex-service man purchased an Ashok Leyland lorry now bearing registration No. TNY 21-4622 for his son and since he did not- have experience in the lorry field, through a common friend he contacted the petitioner for the purpose of body building of the basis and for the business of lifting loads for the vehicle. The petitioner represented that he was well experienced in this field and accordingly on the assurance of the petitioner that he could have the body built and could also lift loads through people known to him, the vehicle was entrusted to the petitioner for the purpose of body building at Namakkal. Later there had been investments both by the second respondent and by the petitioner towards body building and subsequent gelling up of the vehicle. It is the case of the second respondent that while he was attending on his ailing son in the hospital, the petitioner obtained his signatures in Stamp papers and to the horror of the second respondent, it was found that a partnership deed had been written up. The allegation of the second respondent is that he never entered into any partnership with the petitioner and the signatures obtained in blank papers had been misused and a partnership deed created. The vehicle was being taken away to Bangalore. On these allegations a case had been registered. ( 3 ) DURING investigation the petitioner had been arrested, released on bail and the vehicle seized. Now the petitioner as well as the second respondent seek interim custody of the vehicle. ( 4 ) THE facts are more or less admired. The registration certificate of the vehicle stands in the name of the second respondent. He is, therefore, the registered owner of the vehicle. The petitioner docs not dispute that. Now the petitioner as well as the second respondent seek interim custody of the vehicle. ( 4 ) THE facts are more or less admired. The registration certificate of the vehicle stands in the name of the second respondent. He is, therefore, the registered owner of the vehicle. The petitioner docs not dispute that. However, even according to the second respondent, he lawfully entrusted the vehicle to the petitioner for the purpose of body building and for lifting loads. Both sides have invested money into it. Promissory notes have been wringer. Each side has a claim over the other side. They are not able to come to terms. It is for the respective parties to work out their remedies in civil forums. As far as the criminal court is concerned, it has only to see whether prima facie, offences under Section 420 or Section 406 or Section 467 I. P. C. are made out. Section 420 I. P. C. is said to have been attracted because the petitioner made a representation that he was well acquainted with people in the lorry field and he would help the second respondent to lift loads. Section 406 I. P. C. is said to be attracted since the vehicle even after entrustment was nor returned to the second respondent. Both parties agree that there was a lawful entrustment. The terms of the entrustment are not specific. While the petitioner would say that he had invested money in body building which has to be reimbursed before the vehicle could be taken and the entrustment was also for lifting loads, the second respondent would state that he is the registered owner of the vehicle, that he has to clear the loans from the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation and whatever money claims the petitioner might have, will have to be established only in civil forums and retention of the vehicle by the petitioner is unlawful. The question of partnership deed having been written in blank papers cannot be gone into now. ( 5 ) IN view of the fact that even according to the second respondent the vehicle was lawfully entrusted to the petitioner and he has no specific case as to what the terms of entrustment were, the petitioner cannot be denied the use of the vehicle. ( 5 ) IN view of the fact that even according to the second respondent the vehicle was lawfully entrusted to the petitioner and he has no specific case as to what the terms of entrustment were, the petitioner cannot be denied the use of the vehicle. Even in a case of lawful entrustment, if the property is being utilised for the purpose contrary to the terms of the entrustment. Section 406 I. P. C. would be attracted. The second respondent has no positive case about that. These will all be matters which would be gone into during investigation and trial. The prayer is only nor interim custody. Admittedly the petitioner has invested money in the vehicle. While so, the criminal court cannot be used to seize the vehicle and hand it over to the second respondent. ( 6 ) I therefore direct interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner subject to the following conditions (1) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties each for the said sum to the satisfaction or the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Poonamallee. (2) The petitioner shall make a cash deposit of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand-only) to the credit of the case. (3) The petitioner shall give an undertaking to the said Magistrate that he will not alter, alienate, tamper or deal with the vehicle in question in any manner whatsoever till the disposal of the case and that he will produce the said vehicle before any court of Law as and when required either by court or the first respondent. Application allowed.